|
Post by Helen unlogged on Apr 1, 2008 1:03:59 GMT -5
More spin... At the end of the day, you are still advocating that abusers should continue to have access to children via their positions of trust. I think maybe the point is that once their "crimes" are known, they are no longer in a position of trust. My biggest "platform" regarding this subject has been: "It is what is hidden that can hurt us". If its out in the open, people are aware and wary and not likely to allow themselves or their children etc. to fall into the positon of being a victim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2008 1:57:02 GMT -5
I agree Helen, pulling the status of 'worthy of unlimited trust' will neutralize most of the danger to families. Openess is part of honesty, and in the end is positive for everyone, including treating potential abusers.
Hiding the truth is active dishonesty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2008 3:49:48 GMT -5
Sorry rational, I cant agree with you on your last post. There as some things that are not negotiable. If anyone has been suspected of child molestation or of sexual crimes, they should step down from their position of trust. We can all talk sh....t all day about forgiveness etc, but at the end of the day, a pedophile is a pedophile and he/she will not change their spots. Remember how hard it was to give up smoking.....I still miss smoking although I know it was the best day of my life when I gave up smoking. I couldn't give a rats if they are not suited to another occupation, thats no excuse to have them stay. And lets be honest, if you were in a Gospel meeting and a guy/gal was preaching and you knew/suspected that they were a pedophile, what sort of a message would you hear? ?
|
|
|
Post by Chey Kinghead on Apr 1, 2008 5:56:29 GMT -5
The position of Worker carries with it an enormous position of trust. This position of trust should be jealously guarded at all cost if the Workers wish to continue enjoying the liberties and privileges provided by the friends which is an integral part of their belief system.
A worker who is guilty of child molestation, whether proved in court or admitted to his peers, should be removed from the work. There is a big confidence issue here. The Victims, friends and peer workers need to be considered first and foremost, before any necessary re-habilitation of the errant worker. The road to redemption should not lead back into, or continuance in the work. A worker serving under a cloud of child abuse would require constant observation, something the system is not designed to do.
Remember, this is a far more serious issue than "believing others outside the fold are saved," or "re-marriage after divorce" or "putting your faith only in Jesus without the accompaniment of Workers," all things which are heretical to many inside the faith, most especially the workers.
Keeping a worker in the work following conviction or admission of child abuse would prove the system has one law for some and another law for others. Their Bible is not Orwell's Animal Farm, so a system which allows some to be "more equal than others" is a non-starter.
All allegations of child abuse or other acts of impropriety should be investigated and dealt with accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Chey Kinghead on Apr 1, 2008 6:08:55 GMT -5
If a worker has been convicted of a child molestation crime and has been put out of the work it is the responsibility of "the law" to protect society at large by restricting his movements and contact with minors.
Being put out of the work, but allowed continuance in fellowship is far more likely to keep him in one place than the peripatetic nature of the work, which by its very belief system does not recognise fixed place ministries.
Friends living in the area of his residence will soon be aware of any risk he may pose if the overseer of the area or his agents show their responsibility towards the brethren and inform them of the situation.
In fainess to the wayward worker, and bearing in mind a fixed ministry position is not an option, every year or thereabouts, as he moves into a new area to preach, he would have to live with the fact his past goes into the new field ahead of him. This is not a desirable situation and one that would be difficult to strictly maintain over the course of years.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 6:56:49 GMT -5
Sorry rational, I cant agree with you on your last post. There as some things that are not negotiable. If anyone has been suspected of child molestation or of sexual crimes, they should step down from their position of trust. We can all talk sh....t all day about forgiveness etc, but at the end of the day, a pedophile is a pedophile and he/she will not change their spots. Remember how hard it was to give up smoking.....I still miss smoking although I know it was the best day of my life when I gave up smoking. I couldn't give a rats if they are not suited to another occupation, thats no excuse to have them stay. And lets be honest, if you were in a Gospel meeting and a guy/gal was preaching and you knew/suspected that they were a pedophile, what sort of a message would you hear? ? I think you failed to read the question. The Reality asked: Why should workers who abuse children remain workers? and admonished me not to change the question. I actually had already responded to a similar question but this time around the question was only asking for a list of reasons and not encouraging discussion. The question was in the form of those logical fallacies that are attempting to draw a conclusion and force the wanted answer rather than open the idea to discussion. I have a much longer list of why they should not remain workers but that was beyond the very narrow scope of the question. Stepping outside of the scope of the question you said: If anyone has been suspected of child molestation or of sexual crimes, they should step down from their position of trust.This raises the issue of what constitutes enough suspicion to act. I have always believed that if you have enough information/facts to accuse someone publicly of child abuse that you should take it to the authorities. There is a very real danger that acting on spurious accusations could ruin the life of an innocent person. On the other hand, being over cautious means that some credible reports might be overlooked. State agencies are experienced in this and can evaluate the evidence presented. What needs to be eliminated is the gossip and rumors that are passed from person to person but never presented to the authorities.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 7:46:35 GMT -5
The position of Worker carries with it an enormous position of trust. This position of trust should be jealously guarded at all cost if the Workers wish to continue enjoying the liberties and privileges provided by the friends which is an integral part of their belief system. A worker who is guilty of child molestation, whether proved in court or admitted to his peers, should be removed from the work. Again, the question did not make it clear as to whether there was proof or what the legal status was. The answer should have been that workers who abuse children should be reported and, if the required proof is available, arrested. Remaining in the work, in my mind, is a moot point. I would think the 'organization' would want the offender removed from active preaching and ministering to the members but I still hold that this can be managed by informing the members clearly of the danger and the steps they should take. Once convicted the court would also have a say in what may and may not be allowed. A agree with you that it would not be a comfortable situation for anyone. It is. The court will specify what constraints will be placed on a convicted abuser. But it is also a spiritual matter. The church has to determine how they deal with the workers. Sweeping it under the rug did not work out so well. Hopefully there is an update to the procedure. I am not sure there is a double standard. It seems in the past that unless there was official action the activity of both workers and members were hidden. Again this is a spiritual issue and I am on thin ice but with all the talk about forgiveness and new starts that Christians profess it does not seem to be promoting those values if when someone has received treatment to cast them out. Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 7:57:48 GMT -5
If a worker has been convicted of a child molestation crime and has been put out of the work it is the responsibility of "the law" to protect society at large by restricting his movements and contact with minors. Being put out of the work, but allowed continuance in fellowship is far more likely to keep him in one place than the peripatetic nature of the work, which by its very belief system does not recognise fixed place ministries. Friends living in the area of his residence will soon be aware of any risk he may pose if the overseer of the area or his agents show their responsibility towards the brethren and inform them of the situation. In fainess to the wayward worker, and bearing in mind a fixed ministry position is not an option, every year or thereabouts, as he moves into a new area to preach, he would have to live with the fact his past goes into the new field ahead of him. This is not a desirable situation and one that would be difficult to strictly maintain over the course of years. Please remember that I was only trying to come up with a list as instructed. It was difficult to remain within the constraints.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Apr 1, 2008 8:29:11 GMT -5
Your attempt to suggest that my question carries logical fallacies is a fraud!
On that basis alone, I will submit that you want to protect pedophiles. It's been obvious all along, but at least now we're getting closer to your final admission of the fact.
|
|
|
Post by yes but on Apr 1, 2008 8:46:47 GMT -5
Let's try this again: why should workers who abuse children remain workers? Now let's see if you can answer that without rewording it first. Well, I came up with a list of 6 possible reasons. 1) If they stay in the work their location is known. 2) If their situation is advertised there is no downside in allowing them to continue preaching. 3) Staying in the work would allow them to apologize to their victims face to face. 4) They are ill prepared for any other occupation. 5) Keeping them in the work will prevent them from being out among other possible victims who might be unaware of their danger. 6) If they have not been convicted there is a small, but non-zero, possibility that they could bring legal action against those who who leveled the accusations against them. Sounds good, you would think that having a companion would be like 24/7 hour surveillance. But doesn't seem to work so well.
|
|
|
Post by facts on Apr 1, 2008 8:51:44 GMT -5
Your attempt to suggest that my question carries logical fallacies is a fraud! On that basis alone, I will submit that you want to protect pedophiles. It's been obvious all along, but at least now we're getting closer to your final admission of the fact. 1) It's only a fact in your mind. 2) It's only getting closer (in your mind) so that you can think you are winning.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 9:23:15 GMT -5
Your attempt to suggest that my question carries logical fallacies is a fraud! On that basis alone, I will submit that you want to protect pedophiles. It's been obvious all along, but at least now we're getting closer to your final admission of the fact. You asked a question that limited my response to giving reasons why workers should remain in the work if they were abusing children. I could think of 6 reasons which I provided. I didn't attempt to say there was a logical fallacy in your question I stated it directly. The fallacy in your question is plurium interrogationum. You asked a question that suggests something that has not been accepted by the people involved, that workers should stay in the work. The question limits replies only to those that serve the questioner's, your, agenda, list reasons why workers who abuse children should stay in the work. Once I responded to the specific question, without modification as you requested, you used my responses in an attempt to say they indicate somehow that I want to protect pedophiles when I have stated in numerous posts that this is not the case. Perhaps you could explain how my claim is a fraud. Oh, I know. You have never said you would support that claim so I will not ask about it again.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 9:27:00 GMT -5
Sounds good, you would think that having a companion would be like 24/7 hour surveillance. But doesn't seem to work so well. Again, my ability to respond was constrained by the questioner. There was a a post from Edgar, I believe, that indicated the opposite, that a workers companion would have a great deal of insight. I expressed my doubt at the time and still do not think it is a solution. However, it did seem like a plausible reason why workers should remain in the work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2008 9:45:04 GMT -5
Sounds good, you would think that having a companion would be like 24/7 hour surveillance. But doesn't seem to work so well. Again, my ability to respond was constrained by the questioner. There was a a post from Edgar, I believe, that indicated the opposite, that a workers companion would have a great deal of insight. I expressed my doubt at the time and still do not think it is a solution. However, it did seem like a plausible reason why workers should remain in the work. All I suggested was that the companion they are with probably has as good an insight as anyone as to what their companion is doing with his/her time --- They are supposed to be together a major part of their time --- but this isn't always the case. But then again on the other hand, a companion that is always vanishing on his/her own should also ring a warning bell of sorts??!! However companions are also workers -- and works by definition are up to their neck in doctrinal propaganda .. and so most, just as I was, have learned to 'look the other' way as a matter of survival.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 10:04:41 GMT -5
However companions are also workers -- and works by definition are up to their neck in doctrinal propaganda .. and so most, just as I was, have learned to 'look the other' way as a matter of survival. This is where the education aspect of the plan has to come into play. In a business environment people are brought in to address sensitive issues. I would think this would be useful in light of the fact that there are different rules for various states and for different problems. A worker's meeting with a person addressing child abuse as a headliner!
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Apr 1, 2008 10:23:41 GMT -5
rational,
You can spin all you want. The truth is obvious that you want to protect pedophile workers.
|
|
|
Post by repeat on Apr 1, 2008 10:38:54 GMT -5
rational, You can spin all you want. The truth is obvious that you want to protect pedophile workers.
|
|
|
Post by repeat on Apr 1, 2008 10:39:26 GMT -5
rational, You can spin all you want. The truth is obvious that you want to protect pedophile workers.
|
|
|
Post by ooT on Apr 1, 2008 10:39:38 GMT -5
Hang in there, Rational! The credibility of Reality is seriously slipping.
|
|
|
Post by repeat on Apr 1, 2008 10:40:52 GMT -5
rational, You can spin all you want. The truth is obvious that you want to protect pedophile workers. And you can keep repeating this all day, and still the only one it seems obvious to is you. Think about it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 10:42:46 GMT -5
rational, You can spin all you want. The truth is obvious that you want to protect pedophile workers. You logic has been shown to be faulty and deceptive. You have failed to point to a single post where I have ever advocated protecting workers who abuse children. I will restate here, again, that I believe anyone who is guilty of abusing children should be reported to the appropriate authorities to be dealt with according to law. However, if your definition of "protecting child abusers" is to turn them into the police or child services then I guess, by that specific definition, I want to protect child abusers!
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Apr 1, 2008 11:18:18 GMT -5
Which of your posts should I point to? Nearly all of them advocate leaving in place workers who abuse children.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 11:25:33 GMT -5
Which of your posts should I point to? Nearly all of them advocate leaving in place workers who abuse children. Then you should have no problem in selecting one.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Apr 1, 2008 11:35:59 GMT -5
Let's get to the truth here. Why are you deadset against suspending workers who abuse children?
Earlier I read your comment about how overseers are not obligated to act as mandated reporters on workers under their authority who abuse children. Are there any other protections for pedophiles that you would like to advocate that we haven't heard yet?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 13:45:59 GMT -5
Let's get to the truth here. Why are you deadset against suspending workers who abuse children? You need to watch these logical fallacies. This is not my position on people guilty of child abuse. Why not just point to any post I have made stating I am against reporting anyone who abuses children to the proper authorities and having them dealt with by the courts. If they are indeed guilty of child abuse the courts will stipulate what their activities are regarding being in the presence of children. The workers are not recognized as other ministers and thus they are considered under the law as ordinary citizens. As such, in most states in the US, they are not mandated reporters. However, in some states, Texas for example, anyone who knows about child abuse is required to report it. Failure to do so is a crime. You need to check the meaning of advocate. Or you could point to a post I have made where I am advocating for protections for pedophiles. I didn't make the laws, I was just relating the information. These are just the current laws. Call your congressman if you have complaints. I really don't know all you have not heard of but I am slowly building up a catalog.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Apr 1, 2008 14:04:20 GMT -5
Logical fallacy? Where?
I was referring to "workers who abuse children" and you respond by talking about "people guilty of child abuse." The fallacy is that you keep changing the topic.
You apparently cannot grasp the concept that workers who abuse children must be removed from any possible contact with children. You are a fool to think that being in the work does not create circumstances where contact with children takes place. It's an inherent part of the job. Workers who abuse children must be removed from the work. Period.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2008 15:05:48 GMT -5
Plurium interrogationum. You asked a question that assumes something that has not been proved or accepted by the people discussing the issue. As it turns out workers are people and under the law they are afforded no special designation. So when I say "people guilty of child abuse." that set also included the workers because they are part of the set called people. Hmm. I can see you are having trouble with basic set theory so I can try to restate. People, and this would include workers, butchers, candlestick makers and a variety of other subsets which I will not bother naming, who abuse children should be reported to the authorities. The authorities will then investigate and, if the evidence presented is sufficient, potentially remove the person from places where they could be a danger to children, and then the person, and remember that this could also include workers, will be tried. If the person, and this could very well include workers, is found guilty the court will determine the level of interaction allowed and will very clearly state the parameters for this person's interaction with children or in locations where children are likely to be found. If warranted this will remove the person, and this could include workers, from places where they would be a danger to children. So it is not necessary to make a special case for workers being removed because they will be treated just like other child abusers. I hope this clears it up for you and I apologize for making my case focused on the larger set of individuals [people] rather than on the subset [workers]. The rules should be applied to all people equally. As has been pointed out the punishment could be varied depending on the status of the abuser. And you do not seem to understand that the courts will take care of all of this. The guilty child abuser will have a number of rules to follow. And this will be imposed on them by the courts. It almost seems like you have an alternative plan but, as you clearly stated, you are not willing to share it.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Apr 1, 2008 15:19:20 GMT -5
I'm having no such troubles, other than that you prefer that workers who abuse children have continued access to children via their position of trust as workers.
The remainder of your insults will remain ignored.
|
|